Martin Hackl Dissertation

  • Ariel Mira. (2004) Most. Language 80: 658–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Barwise, Jon, Robin Cooper. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan. (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 275–344Google Scholar

  • Farkas, Donka, Katalin Kiss. E. (2000) On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 417–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, Danny. 2006. Free choice and a theory of scalar implicature. MIT.Google Scholar

  • Hackl Fox, Danny, Martin Hackl. (2006) On the universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586Google Scholar

  • Geurts, Bart, Rick Nouwen. (2005) “At least” et al.: the semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83: 533–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. University of Texas at Austin. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zc0ZjY0M.

  • Heim, Irene. 1999. Superlatives. MIT lecture notes. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TI1MTlhZ/Superlative.pdf.

  • Heim, Irene. 2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae, ed. C. Féry and W. Sternefeld, 214–239. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Horn, L. 2005. The border wars: a neo-Gricean perspective. In Where semantics meets pragmatics, ed. Klaus von Heusinger and Ken Turner, 21–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ionin, Tania, Matushansky. Ora (2006) The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23(4): 315–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Keenan, Edward. (2003) The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics?. Natural Language Semantics 11(2): 187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Keenan, Edward, and Dag Westerstahl. 1997. Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In Handbook of logic and language, ed. Johann van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 873–893. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Kennedy, Chris. (1999) Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Garland Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantic and contextual expressions, ed. Renate Bartsch, Johann van Benthem, and Peter van Emde Boas, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfr (1996) Parametrized sum individuals for plural reference and partitive quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(6): 555–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren't determiners. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. (=Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, Vol. 1), ed. Ken Turner, 257–291. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Landman, Fred (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de GruyterGoogle Scholar

  • Mostowski, Andrzej. (1957) On a generalization of quantifiers. Fundamenta Mathematicae 44: 12–36Google Scholar

  • Nerbonne, John. 1994. A semantics for nominal comparatives. In Proceedings of the 9th Amsterdam Colloquium. ed. Paul Dekker and Martin Stockhof, 487–506. Amsterdam: ILLG.Google Scholar

  • Papafragou, Anna, and Naomi Schwarz. 2006. Most wanted. Language Acquisition 13 (Special issue: On the acquisition of quantification): 207–251.Google Scholar

  • Sharvit, Yael, Penka Stateva. (2002) Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 453–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Stateva, Penka. 2005. Presuppositions in superlatives. GLOW abstract.Google Scholar

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. In Papers in theoretical linguistics, ed. Naoki Fukui, Tova Rapoport, and Elizabeth Sagey, 245–265. Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL 8.Google Scholar

  • Szabolcsi, A. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of scope taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi, 109–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • van Benthem, Johan. (1986) Essays in logical semantics. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar

  • von Stechow, Arnim. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1989. The semantics of plurality quantification: the proportion problem is a pseudo-problem. In Proceedings of ESCOL ’89, 301–312.Google Scholar

  • Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1998: The unified semantics of most. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, 320–334.Google Scholar

  • 1.

    Beaver, D.: Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. CSLI, Stanford (2001)Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Beaver, D., Krahmer, E.: A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 147–182 (2001)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Charlow, S.: “Strong” predicative presuppositional objects. In: Klinedinst, N., Rothschild, D. (eds.) Proceedings of ESSLLI 2009 Workshop: New Directions in the Theory of Presupposition (2009)Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Chemla, E.: Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17, 299–340 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Chemla, E.: (ms) Similarity: towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Ms., ENSGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Cooper, R.: Quantification and Semantic Theory. Reidel, Dordrecht (1983)Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Fox, D.: Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34, 237–252 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Fox, D.: Presupposition projection, trivalent and relevance. Handout of the talk at University of Connecticut, Storrs (2010)Google Scholar

  • 9.

    George, B.: A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. In: Proceedings of SALT 18, pp. 358–375 (2008a)Google Scholar

  • 10.

    George, B.: Presupposition Repairs: a Static, Trivalent Approach to Predicting Projection. MA thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (2008b)Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Geurts, B.: Presuppositions and Pronouns. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar

  • 12.

    Heim, I.: On the projection problem of presuppositions. In: Proceedings of WCCFL 2, pp. 114–125 (1983)Google Scholar

  • 13.

    Huang, Y.T., Spelke, E., Snedeker, J.: (ms.) What exactly do numbers mean? Ms., Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Karttunen, L.: Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44 (1977)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Peters, S.: A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese 40, 301–316 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Schlenker, P.: Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 3 (2009)Google Scholar

  • 17.

    Schlenker, P.: The proviso problem: a note. To appear in Natural Language Semantics (to appear)Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Singh, R.: Modularity and Locality in Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2008)Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Stalnaker, R.: Assertion. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, pp. 315–332. Academic Press, NY (1978)Google Scholar

  • 0 Thoughts to “Martin Hackl Dissertation

    Leave a comment

    L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *